1. Flood, James E. "Parental Styles in Reading Episodes with Young Children." The Reading Teacher. Vol. 30. International Reading Association, 1977. 864-867. 8. JSTOR. Web. 27 Sept. 2010. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/20194414>.
Information: Author’s credentials – The author, James E. Flood, is a professor of language and reading at Boston University in Boston, Massachusetts. Thus, he should know a significant amount regarding the benefits of reading. He also uses in-text citation in the article (which is a scholarly source) and has a lists of references, all concerning reading and young children.
Scope and purpose of the work – This article functions as an informational report, intended to inform, not persuade, the reader of the author’s opinion, which is backed up with specific details.
Intended audience - Based on the professional yet simple language of the article, it is most likely written for a general audience who does not know much about the topic. The use of specific facts also makes the article useful for experts in the field of reading and comprehension who are looking for an article to use as a starting point.
Summary: Identify the author’s thesis – The author begins by introducing the topic and the general assumption that reading leads to more progressive language development, then states that not many people take into consideration what specifically leads to enhanced language maturity. By basing the article on a specific study done in 1970 regarding parent and child interaction by reading, Flood indicates that he believes parental reading to young children is beneficial for their mental and emotional growth, especially if focused on four main aspects, as indicated through the results of the study.
What are the main arguments? – Flood enforces his support of early reading by citing the significant findings of the study, namely four aspects: children benefit from reading preparation, such as general questions from the parents prior to actually reading the book; children should be actively involved in the reading process; positive reinforcement from the parent stimulates learning; and ‘debriefing’ after the story about the content helps the child and remember what he/she has read.
Evidence? – Flood specifically references and cites the 1970 study done by Marshall Swift. The study was associated with the Get Set Program in Philadelphia, which helps mothers of pre-schoolers expand their children’s learning through observational skills and more elaborate thoughts. 171 parents participated with their kids ages 3½-4½. Parents were asked to read the book Ask Mr. Bear by Marjorie Flack to their children. The interaction between parent and child, with emphasis on specific tasks, was recorded and later evaluated for number of words/questions asked by the child, the parent, etc.
Evaluation: Evaluation of research – The article is obviously well-researched and presented in a logical and orderly way. The source is scholarly and the author, based on his occupation, is reliable. Nine references were given following the article.
Evaluation of scope – The topic has been adequately addressed, though the article is focused primarily on the results on one study, with little mention to additional studies or any opposing viewpoints.
Evaluation of author bias – The author supports the stance that reading to children from a young age, when done properly, is beneficial. Therefore, his stance is not quite objective, though he uses a professional tone and backs all his statements up with ample facts. It’s hard to imagine someone claiming that reading does not have any valuable effects on the developing minds of children.
Reflection: Is this source helpful to your research? – This source was a good starting point, and provided a broad scope while also focusing on one specific example/study. The data gleaned from the study supports my argument, and the information helped me specify my research question. I will definitely use this in my final project. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information: Author’s credentials – Authors Mary T. Brownell and Chriss Walther-Thomas are both involved in education. Brownell is associated with the Department of Special Education at the University of Florida, while Walther-Thomas currently works at the College of William and Mary. Because this article was an interview, it is also important to note the qualifications of the interviewee, because the majority of cited information is given by him. Dr. Michael Pressley is currently an academic director and teacher of education at the University of Nature Dame. He has an undergraduate degree from Northwestern University, where he studied developmental psychology. He then attended both the University of Minnesota and the University of Wisconsin as a doctoral student, where he concentrated on children’s reading. Pressley has taught at numerous schools, including the California State University at Fullerton, the University of Maryland, and the University of Western Ontario in Canada. Additionally, Pressley received the Sylvia Scribner Award from the American Educational Research Association for his research contributions to instruction/learning, coauthored the book Verbal Protocols of Reading, and participated in a study of first grade teachers with Dr. Richard Allington at the State University of New York at Albany.
Scope and purpose of work – The purpose of this article is to inform the reader. The interview serves as an overview of Dr. Pressley’s opinions regarding the teaching of effective developmental strategies in struggling readers. Though the source is not objective, a persuasive tone is not taken.
Intended audience – Due to the nature of the article, one can assume that the intended audience consists of lay persons, who are seeking to develop and expand upon their knowledge. Particularly, teachers or parents of children struggling with reading would benefit from this article. Certain parts to go into detail, so it could potentially be useful to experts as well.
Summary: Identify the author’s thesis – First, Dr. Pressley addresses the difficulties that plague struggling readers when dealing with text comprehension. He focuses on children who have yet to enter kindergarten, and explains why the lack of development in such young children often makes it difficult for them to perceive text in the same way adults do. After citing the mistakes that teachers and parents make when nurturing reading skills in young children, he discusses the positive changes that both teachers and parents should make to better facilitate development. Ultimately, Pressley indicates that he believes not enough is being done to fully support young readers, and follows this declaration with his ideas (based on experience/research) on what should be done.
What are the main arguments – Because young children do not yet have fully developed oral skills, Pressley indicates that the activities in young grades, specifically kindergarten, focus too much on word-recognition skills, sounds and blending, and letters. This is difficult for students to understand, because they do not yet possess sufficient speaking skills. Instead, teachers should encourage students to integrate their prior knowledge with the reading material, and focus more on comprehension strategies (such as organizational skills). Reading programs for struggling students, such as Reading Recovery, should begin around second grade and focus on phonics skills, integrating reading with writing. Additionally, such programs should be in part impromptu, because these gives teachers greater flexibility to address areas of learning that need concentration.
Evidence? – During the interview, Pressley cites his observations of the evolution of reading programs through the grades to support his beliefs that as children get older, not enough is done to aid in literary development, and what is done is done with a lack of organization and in irrelevant ways. Later, Pressley discusses his interactions with programs such as Reading Recovery, which are aimed at supporting the reading skills of struggling readers. He mentions in detail the strategies implemented, mainly the combination of phonics and writing supplements, and the success rates of this program. He then uses this information to expose the ineffectiveness of ‘scripted’ reading programs because they do not allow teachers to interact with students on a specific topic without planning to do so.
Evaluation: Evaluation of research – The article is presented in a professional, structured way. There is an introduction which establishes Dr. Pressley’s expertise, which is followed by an interview in which the questions are organized by sub-section.
Evaluation of scope – The topic (the effectiveness of various reading strategies on struggling readers) is presented thoroughly, although at times Pressley doesn’t seem to adequately support his statements with experience or research. He does stay on task, though a great deal of the interview is opinion with not much other than credentials to back up Pressley’s ideas.
Evaluation of author bias – Dr. Pressley is very opinionated regarding the topic, though his interview is not conducted in such a way that the reader feels actively persuaded. He definitely supports a specific stance, though it is with professionalism and tact.
Reflection: Is this source helpful for your research? – This source is not as helpful as I initially thought it would be because although a strong viewpoint is presented, not enough research is given to back it up. Additionally, it focuses on struggling readers more so than early readers. I did however learn strong background regarding the most effective ways to enhance reading, which could be applied to my topic in a slightly broader way. I will probably be able to incorporate some of this background knowledge into my ultimate research product. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Cooper, David H., Deborah L. Speece, and Froma P. Roth. "A Longitudinal Analysis of the Connection between Oral Language and Early Reading." The Journal of Educational Research. Vol. 95. Heldref Publications, 2002. 259-272. 5. JSTOR. Web. 4 Oct. 2010. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/27542389>.
Information: Author’s credentials – All three collaborative authors of this publication are affiliated with the University of Maryland. David Cooper is the associate dean for undergraduate programs and school partnerships in the College of Education, Froma Roth is involved with the study of hearing and speech sciences, and Deborah Spreece is a professor for the department for special education. Contact information, including address and email, is given.
Scope and purpose of the work – Based on the detailed nature of the article and the scientific terms used throughout, I do not think this article was written for the lay person. It is an intricate information report, and seems to be written for someone who is an expert regarding language development through reading in young children. The study is extensively explained in great detail.
Summary: Identify the author’s thesis – The three authors use their findings from the first three years of a longitudinal study which they hope will ultimately show the relationship between early reading and oral language development. They hope to support their beliefs that the importance of oral language skills in regard to early reading in elementary children functionally varies in terms to reading skill, measurement point, and language domain.
What are the main arguments? – The primary argument of this article is that phonological awareness in kindergarten leads to more developed reading habits in first and second grades. However, the authors believe that semantic abilities (such as retrieval and oral definitions) are more effective than phonological awareness during the analyzation process.
Evidence – In order to clarify their hypothesis, the authors engaged 39 children into a wide range of oral language measures in three different areas, as well as measures of reading abilities and background variables. The same children were analyzed in kindergarten, first, and second grade for their variations in reading styles. Regression analyses were used to collect and model data.
Evaluation: Evaluation of research – Because this detailed report explains the results of a three-year longitudinal study, the work is obviously well-researched. Though some of the concepts are a little difficult, everything is presented in an orderly fashion.
Evaluation of scope – The authors’ claims are based on a personal investigation, therefore one can say that the topic has been more than adequately explored.
Evaluation of author bias – The authors take an objective stance on the data throughout the entire report, and do not manipulate the reader toward one direction or another.
Reflection: Is this source helpful for your research? – This source is helpful in my research, and will be particularly useful in supporting my findings with specific examples or studies or methods. I learned of the connection between reading and language development, and the entire source, which describes the study in detail, supports all drawn conclusions. This source, because of the detail, should help me narrow my topic. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information: Author’scredentials – The author of this article submitted it anonymously, therefore nothing is known about him/her. Though this questions the reliability of the article, the information will be a good starting point upon which to base further research.
Scope and purpose of the work – This article acts as a mix between a general overview based on opinion and an informational report. Facts are intertwined with the author’s own attitudes regarding the importance of proficient reading from elementary school. Based on the writing of the article and the broad perspective that is taken, this source is most likely written for an average person, rather than an expert in the field. It elicits greater thought regarding the reasons proficient reading by third grade is necessary.
Summary: Identify the author's thesis – The author believes that all children should be able to read on a capable level by the end of third grade. He also acknowledges that this is often not the case, and if children begin to fall behind in reading abilities at even such a young age, the results can be detrimental. A child who is not a proficient reader in elementary school may never catch up and be prepared mentally (in terms of language and vocabulary skills) and emotionally for the challenges presented in high school and the real world. Additionally, the author blames in part the schools and reading programs, which he believes do not separate children into the right categories when classifying their skill levels.
What are the main arguments? – In order to enforce his viewpoint, the author discusses four recommendations offered by the Common Core State Standards Initiative of what should be done to increase literacy in young students. The first suggestion indicates that a logical system regarding early education should be developed that deals with children from birth until kindergarten. This system should coincide with the patterns of learning utilized by elementary school in order to maintain a consistent learning technique. Suggestion number two highlights the necessity of parents, caregivers, and families when encouraging literary growth through reading with elementary age children. The third recommendation proposes that more should be done to aid in developing underprivileged school programs, because these environments often bring about the lowest test scores. Finally, it is suggested that special attention should be given to extended absences from school, especially summer vacation, in order to minimize the reading skills that are lost during the summer due to lack of usage.
Evidence? – The author’s arguments are reported by the 2009 results of the national Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) – a test which evaluates reading skills [in 4th graders]. While the majority of the article is opinions, evidence is also supported by citations to efforts of the government to raise national capabilities of children in reading (i.e. the No Child Left Behind Act). This ties into my argument that children must start reading at a young age.
Evaluation: Evaluation of research – The information is presented in an organized fashion, and is clear and easy to follow. It is well-researched in certain aspects, such as when referring to what is being done to better reading capabilities in children, but not quite as much as I had originally thought in terms of evidence of the necessity of reading in young children.
Evaluation of scope – In my opinion, lots of background is given, but the topic reflected in the name of the article (Why Reading by the End of Third Grade Matters) is not adequately covered. There are not many direct examples given, and while recommendations on how to enforce better reading habits are mentioned, the benefits of reading by the end of third grade are not explicitly stated.
Evaluation of author bias – Though the author supports a specific viewpoint and supports his opinion, he does it tactfully and subtly. However, the article is not objective, and the author often references his opinion.
Reflection: Is this source helpful for your research? – Some of the statistics/tests used as evidence are helpful for the background of my research, and will support my argument that early reading is beneficial for young children. But the second half of the article is not related to my area of concentration, and thus is not very useful. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Lane, Holy B., and Tyran L. Wright. "Maximizing the Effectiveness of Reading Aloud." Reading Teacher 60.7 (2007): 668-675. Education Research Complete.Web. 11 Oct. 2010. <http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/results?vid=2&hid=8&s...>. Information: Author’s credentials – Holly B. Lane teaches at the University of Florida. Lane is an assistant professor in the Department of Special Education, where she is involved in research regarding to children who don’t respond typically to normal classroom situations. Tyran L. Wright is also a teacher at the University of Florida.
Scope and purpose of the work – This article seems intended for teachers and educators because it focuses on how such people can help children become stronger readers. For that reason, the source is also appropriate for parents of young children who are learning to read. It is written as informational report, with multiple references to studies that have been conducted. The language however, is not too technical.
Summary: Identify the author’s thesis – The authors believe that reading aloud to/with young children can be extremely beneficial to cognitive learning development regardless of how it’s done. However, there are certain, specific things educators/parents must do in order to maximize the benefits gleaned from read-aloud sessions with children. Thus, the authors are arguing that the benefits of reading aloud can only be exploited fully if done in a precise manner.
What are the main arguments? – The authors divided the article into sections. The first section features background on people’s general opinions on reading aloud. Then, the article segments into variables that should be taken into account when reading with children: time allotted, text/books used, most successful methods, and implementation in the classroom. For example, an assortment of book genres should be used, and different types are successful for different goals. If a student is struggling with vocabulary, a storybook is the best choice because of the expressive language. Additionally, print referencing, which is drawing attention to other aspects of the story such as pictures, should be implemented because it peaks a child’s interest in books.
Evidence? – Multiple past studies and research projects are cited. Dialogic reading was developed by Whitehurst, and is used most with preschool children. It encourages active learning by providing feedback to the story and asking questions to challenge the child to a level just above his current ability. Additionally, text talk, developed primarily by Beck and McKeown, focuses on vocabulary development, and is utilized in primary grades. This strategy is focused around in-class discussions in school. Charts are given to support the findings.
Evaluation: Evaluation of research – The article is obviously very well researched. It is presented logically in three main topics with multiple subheadings, all supported with citations to studies and methods, references to which are given in the back of the article. The writing is clear and easy to follow.
Evaluation of scope – The topic at hand is thoroughly addressed, with multiples references to past studies and investigations that support the authors’ thesis. It is broken down and ample information is given for each subheading, some of which are “Selecting words to teach,” “Creating child-friendly definitions ”and“ Examining book reading in the classroom”.
Evaluation of author bias – The authors take a distinct position on the benefits of reading aloud, but are not necessarily extremely persuasive. The present the information professionally and ultimately allow the readers to form their own opinion based on the extensive examples given in the text.
Reflection: Is this source helpful to your research? – This is perhaps the most beneficial source I have found to date. The entire article directly addresses my topic, and many references to studies I can research more in-depth if necessary are presented. This source has allowed me to narrow my topic even more, which will now focus on actively reading aloud to young children, as opposed to just simply reading with them. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Trelease, Jim. The Read-Aloud Handbook. 4th ed. 1979. New York: Penguin Books, 1995. Print.
Information: Author’s credentials – Jim Trelease is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts. For twenty years postgraduation, Jim wrote for The Springfield Daily News in Massachusetts, while publishing multiple articles in The Reading Teacher and Parents Magazine. Jim has traveled to all 50 states to lecture on the importance of reading aloud to children. His book, The Read-Aloud Handbook, is used by over 60 U.S. colleges as a required reading for education students.
Scope and purpose of the work – The Read-Aloud Handbook acts as an extended informational report. Though Trelease is trying to persuade his audience of the benefits of reading aloud to children, the focus lies more on the facts Trelease uses to explain his point of view [which is shared by many]. The author takes a casual tone, which allows for a smooth combination of factual evidence and opinion. Additionally, the book is intended for the lay person, particularly parents (and teachers) who are seeking to better the reading experience of their students.
Summary: Identify the author’s thesis –Trelease strongly believes that parents should begin reading to their children from birth onward, in order to initially ‘condition’ children to the sound and sight of books, and to peak their interest. He also supports a schedule of the different stages of read-aloud, including when and how to introduce different types of books [pop-up books, joke books, fairy tales, and critical thinking books].
What are the main arguments? – Trelease adheres to a specific list of “do” and “don’ts” when reading to children in order to secure that curiosity established from reading to children from birth. For example, do look up answers to a child’s question in a reference book if applicable in order expand the child’s knowledge base and develop library skills, but don’t use the book as a threat, such as “If you don’t pick up your room, no story tonight!” because the child’s attitude about reading will be negatively affected.
Evidence? – Trelease makes multiple references to facts to demonstrate the necessity of reading aloud, and its positive effects. He begins with background statistics regarding reading in children in general: for example, when surveyed in 1992, 45.7% of fourth graders said they read for pleasure each day, while that number was down to 24.4% by twelfth grade, indicating that unless a permanent interest in reading is established at a young age (through reading aloud) children lose interest in books as they age. Additionally schools must implement reading aloud with the young grades, because in 1994, only “5 percent of twelfth-graders [were] able to write on the level of a college freshman” (Trelease 6), demonstrating that often not enough is done to encourage a lasting love of reading among children.
Evaluation: Evaluation of research – The work is extremely well-researched, and presented in logical chapters and subheadings. It is obvious through the multiple references to reading-related statistics that Trelease put much effort into the research of his book. It is written in a friendly yet formal tone which is clear to the reader and holds ones attention.
Evaluation of scope – In the 300 plus pages of The Read-Aloud Handbook, Trelease addresses more topics that imaginable in copious detail. He takes into account many variables, such as the effects of television accompanied with reading and the benefits of SSR: Sustained silent reading. The listing of over 100 references in the back of the book indicates his attention to every element.
Evaluation of author bias – Trelease spends the entire book arguing a certain position (how to go about reading aloud to children to the utmost effectiveness) but is never arrogant about his opinion, which he backs up with ample facts.
Reflection: Is this source helpful to your research? – This source is definitely the most beneficial of all my sources. From what I gleaned by breezing through the book and reading certain sections, each chapter is pertinent to my research topic. Though the facts are a little dated, there is still plenty of relevant evidence and examples presented. My knowledge on the different stages of reading aloud, in termed of the books utilized, was expanded upon. I now have a much better understanding of the direction I can take during my subsequent research to focus on certain subtopics of my research question. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information: Author’s credentials – Kelly Gallagher has been a high school English teacher for twenty-three years, and is currently teaching full-time at Magnolia High School in Anaheim, California. Gallagher has written other books about how to teach reading/writing effectively, including Deeper Reading: Comprehending Challenging Texts 4-12 and Reading Reasons: Motivational Mini-Lessons for Middle and High School. He also served as the codirector of the South Basin Writing Project at California State University.
Scope and purpose of the work – The purpose of Readicide is to persuade the reader, and evoke great emotion in response to the author’s strong opinions on the negative effects that schools are having on certain aspects of reading. The book is also informative in that it cites various examples of standardized test questions and graphs about average reading and writing scores, but all these tactics are used solely to persuade the reader towards the detrimental effects of certain aspects of modern schooling. Readicide is intended for the lay person because it is written in fairly simple terms. If a teacher or school administrator were to read it, he/she would possibly be offended, though this could be Gallagher’s intention in order to bring about results.
Summary: Identify the author’s thesis – Gallagher begins by voicing concern that reading is declining in schools. Though he acknowledges that factors such as electronic advancements and second-language issues contribute to the deterioration, Gallagher adamantly blames the standardized practices of schools. He defines “readicide” as “the systematic killing of the love of reading, often exacerbated by the inane, mind-numbing practices found in schools.” He belives that the school systems must be made aware of the mistakes they are unknowingly making in their methods and techniques.
What are the main arguments? – Gallagher adamantly supports the idea that reading skills are overtaught to such an extent in schools that students begin to lose interest in reading for pleasure. He believes that teachers spend too much time teaching reading/analyzation skills simply for the purpose of standardized testing. At one point, he brings up the questions of: “When you curl up with a book, do you do so with the idea of preparing for a state-mandated multiple-choice exam? Do you pause at the end of each chapter so you can spend an hour answering a worksheet filled with mind-numbing answers?” (Gallagher 72).
Evidence? – A recurring theme that is discussed is the use of standard multiple-choice questions, and how variation from this such format is essential. At one point, Gallagher includes an example of the one-page paper he requires his students to fill out to supplement their recreational reading. It has a student’s answers written in to indicate the thought process and response to this type of requirement, and is contrasted with the lengthy and technically analytical that is so often required. When citing his concerns with the current school system, Gallagher refers to statistics from To Read or Not to Read (National Endowment for the arts, 2007), including that Americans spend about two hours per day watching television, but only about seven minutes on pleasure reading.
Evaluation: Evaluation of research – Though controversial, the book is well-researched with multiple facts/statistics to support Gallagher’s bold claims. It is presented eloquently and logically in terms of chapter progression, though some of the statements are borderline brash. Gallagher very clearly demonstrates his beliefs on the uselessness of some aspects of the current school systems, particularly the fixation on teaching for standardized testing.
Evaluation of scope – The topic of “Readicide” is very unique in and of itself, but Gallagher addresses it with much detail and numerous facts taken in the past few years pertaining to the state of school systems in terms of standardized testing and overteaching/analyzing academic texts, which he believes are killing a love of reading in children. Each facet of his argument is adequately addressed, and countered with what ‘we,’ as parents and teachers, can do to limit a loss of interest in reading.
Evaluation of author bias –Readicide is a very controversial book, and Gallagher is obviously quite passionate about his topic, which makes his bias heavily evident. He argues against the methods used by schools when analyzing and teaching literature to the point where some of his claims are quite bold, and definitely not objective at all. However, this is seemingly Gallagher’s intention with the book in order to bring more attention to it and thus his point of view.
Reflection: Is this source helpful to your research? –Though highly opinionated, this book could be useful in formulating my final project. Readicide focuses more on what schools are doing wrong in terms of reading programs, but also provides examples of what should be done instead to encourage a lifelong love of reading. These examples, if pertaining to the younger grades, apply in some cases to the open discussion and critical analysis of books that should accompany reading out loud. For example, through the chart entitled “Ending Readicide: The 50/50 Approach,” many examples are given regarding what teachers should do for students in terms of developing recreation versus academic reading skills. For example, teachers should “stop grading recreational reading. [They] should give credit for recreational reading, but stop grading it” (Gallagher 117). Additionally, I also learned that according to Gallagher, teachers should “stop chopping the book into so many pieces that the book itself gets lost” (Gallagher 117). The information presented pertains to the part of my research question that will address what can be done in schools/by parents to encourage sophisticated reading skills.
8. Ross, Catherine Sheldrick, Lynne McKechnie, and Paulette M. Rothbauer. Reading Matters. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Corp., 2006. Print.
Information: Author’s credentials – Catherine Sheldrick Ross is employed with the University of Western Ontario, where she is a dean and professor of the school of Library and Information Studies. She currently is teaching a course on ‘Readers’ Advisory,’ and is also involved in collecting data/research about the joys of reading. Lynne McKechnie also works at the School of Library and Information Studies at the University of Western Ontario, though she is an associate professor. She is in the midst of a longitudinal study about the role of public libraries for 30 young children. Lastly, Paulette M. Rothbauer is an assistant professor at the University of Toronto. She has won the Eugene Garfield dissertation. Scope and purpose of the work –Why Reading Matters debunks recurring myths about reading, allowing the authors to use their gathered facts from journals, media studies, or additional libraries. It can be considered an informational report because there were many facts and statistics [referenced in the back of the book] broken down into categories including “the social nature of reading,” “audiences,” and “reader-response”. The preface of the book specifically states that it was “written for people who are interested in reading and in the role that reading plays in people’s lives” (Ross ix). This can refer to both the average person who simply wants to learn how to benefit their children to the utmost degree, or to librarians, teachers, and educators who are seeking a method for successful teaching of reading skills for their classrooms.
Summary: Identify the author’s thesis –Like many additional authors, the three authors of Reading Matters stress the importance of reading from a young age, and developing that interest. They point out that reading interestss vary by gender, and thus gender and age are important factors that should not be overlooked. The teachers/educators/parents must take into consideration the specific needs of each individual by asking questions and introducing them to a variety of genres in order to expand their horizons, so to speak.
What are the main arguments? –The authors support their allegations on childhood reading with the belief that most children agree on liking adventure, mystery, and ghost stories. Additionally, while parents and educators often want their students to be well-read in terms of literary classics, allowing students access to popular literature, comic books and cartoons holds their interests. Additionally, information on ‘the emergent literacy paradigm’ stresses the importance of reading to children from birth instead of beginning when they receive the first formal instruction in school.
Evidence? – Many references are provided at the end of each chapter in response to the authors’ numerous inclusions of longitudinal studies, statistics, and allegations. For example, Catherine Ross conducted a study of “avid adult readers” (Ross 70) which had adults who consider themselves avid readers reflect on their reading experiences in childhood in order to draw a parallel. In almost all cases, the parents of the adults were directly involved in the reading process, whether it be by supplying lots of books for the household or reading a bedtime story every night. Access to resources and parent involvement were prevalent. In 1995, McKenna, Kear, and Ellsworth surveyed 18,195 American children in grades one-six to find that “negative attitudes toward reading were correlated with weaker ability, with the least able readers being the least interested in reading” (Ross 65). Additionally, the older the children got, the less of an interest in reading they expressed. Over the years, the gap between the interest of girls and boys widened, with girls having the more favorable attitude.
Evaluation: Evaluation of research –This source is one of the easiest to navigate. The information is broken into four chapters, not including the conclusion, and each chapter has anywhere from five to nine subheadings, which are sometimes posed as questions. It is organized logically by age group, which makes it easy for me to find the areas of childhood and young adult. The language is simple to understand.
Evaluation of scope – The topic that I require for my research (children’s books ranging from pre-school to teenage appropriate) is addressed adequately throughout two chapters. The multiple steps necessary to become an accomplished reader, in terms of what to read and how to handle problems should they arise, are explained in great length.
Evaluation of author bias – Though the authors adhere to a certain set of beliefs, the nature of the book is not necessarily strongly persuasive. Evidence is presented in a straightforward fashion, and interweaved subtly with the opinions of the authors. Objectivity in terms of the ‘most correct’ way to effectively read aloud to children is very difficult to achieve, because each author possesses a slightly different viewpoint, all which can be backed up with statistics.
Reflection: Is this source helpful to your research? – I think this book will serve as a good foundation for background research on my topic. The focus is on reading in different stages of life, and though the information presented in the childhood and early adolescent sections are pertinent, there is not a concentration on reading aloud, which is my personal focal point. However, there are ample surveys that provide facts on reading in certain age groups which I will most likely use to introduce different aspects of my research question. For example, reading aloud is implied in a quote by Margaret Meek, an internationally known reading expert: “The process [of reading] should begin at an early age and continue as a genuine collaborative activity until the child leaves school” (Ross 67). 9. Beck, Isabel L., and Margaret G. McKeown. "Text Talk: Capturing the Benefits of Read-Aloud Experiences for Young Children." Reading Teacher 55.1 (2001): 10-11. Teacher Reference Center. Web. 7 Oct. 2010. <http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=>.
Information: Author’s credentials – Isabel Beck is a senior scientist at the University of Pittsburgh, where she also teaches courses on education. Beck has written books, and edited both children and adult books. Her published titles include Creating Robust Vocabulary: Frequently Asked Questions and Extended Examples (Solving Problems in Teaching of Literacy), and Zoom Along 1.2 (Story Town). Margaret McKeown is a senior research scientist at the University of Pittsburgh’s Learning Research and Development Center. She has written and spoken about problems that teachers and students face in the modern classroom.
Scope and purpose of the work – This is an informational report intended to expand upon the authors’ beliefs on the topic of reading aloud to young children. The authors are not objective, and present their personal opinion regarding the effectiveness of read-aloud experiences, but it is done is a professional way. Thus, the source is a persuasive piece that is backed up with ample facts and relevant information – a balance of information and persuasion. The article is written for teachers because it is published in the journal Reading Teacher, which is utilized by educators. However, parents of young children would benefit from reading the article as well. Essentially, a lay person could easily understand the caliber of language.
Summary: Identify the author’s thesis – When adults read aloud to young children, a certain type of text/storybook should be used, because the text provides the basis for all other methods of understanding (supplemental discussions, etc). “Texts that are effective for developing language and comprehension ability need to be conceptually challenging enough to require grappling with ideas and taking an active stance towards constructing meaning” (Beck 1). The authors then branch out into other subtopics.
What are the main arguments? – When discussing the context of text with young children, “the most effective features include focusing the discussion on major story ideas, dealing with ideas as they are encountered in contrast to after the entire story has been read, and involving children in the discussion with opportunities to be reflective” (Beck 2). However, children tend to mostly rely on solely pictures and background knowledge for context, even though such categories are not always congruent with the main idea of the text. Also, teachers should phrase their questions pertaining to text in such a way that open discussion, rather than one-word answers. Children often have difficulty pertaining to the topic at hand, and feel much more comfortable answering questions to general situations that do not require as much elaboration. Teachers must actively work to get children out of their comfort zone, demonstrating that at such a young age, kids find decontextualizing language very difficult.
Evidence? - During their experience in the classrooms, Beck and McKeown found that most kindergarten and first grade teachers generally did not involve students on discussing the major story ideas during reading. “Specifically, [they] observed how children frequently ignored text information and responded to questions on the basis of the pictures and their background knowledge” (Beck 3). Additionally, the authors cite another encounter they experienced in the classroom, which highlights students’ dependence on background knowledge. The Book Curious George Takes a Job begins with “This is George. He lived in the zoo. He was a good little monkey and always very curious. He wanted to find out what was going on outside the zoo” (Rey, qtd. in Beck 4). When asked about what was known about George so far, one student responded, “He likes bananas,” showing that his background knowledge on monkeys was predominant.
Evaluation: Evaluation of research – The article is presented in a clear and direct way. One can easily follow the sequence of thoughts of the authors. It is divided into sections, each with a relevant heading, such as “What we learned from observations, “Texts,” and “Follow-up Questions,” which makes finding specific elements very easy. The topic is obviously well-researched because the authors spent time observing the reading habits of kindergarten and first grade classes, and support all claims with evidence from books or with tables.
Evaluation of scope – Based on the numerous amounts of evidence both from personal experience [of observations] and research, one can conclude that the authors stay on topic throughout, successfully addressing multiple aspects of making the most of read-aloud experiences. All the information is relevant to the article title.
Evaluation of author bias – Because of their personal experience with observations of children’s reading interactions in young grades, both Beck and McKeown are biased as to how to make the most of a read-aloud experience with young children.
Reflection: Is this source helpful to your research? – Because of the caliber of personal experience of the author, this source will be very beneficial. I will be able to incorporate numerous examples of the authors’ classroom experiences to demonstrate the techniques commonly used by teachers. These examples will then support my narrowed thesis, focusing on the specific types of techniques that should be utilized to produce the most success during read-alouds. 10. Morrison, Vanessa, and Lisa Wlodarczyk. "Revisiting Read-Aloud: Instructional Strategies That Encourage Students' Engagement With Texts." Reading Teacher 63.2 (2009): 110-118. Education Research Complete. Web. 11 Oct. 2010. <http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=8&s...>.
Information: Author’s credentials – At the time this article was written, Morrison was teaching at Adrian College in Adrian, Michigan as an Assistant Professor of Teacher Education. Information about Lisa Wlodarczyk was scarce, but she is currently a first grade teacher in Oahu, Hawaii.
Scope and purpose of the work – One can tell simply from the title of the article that the source is persuasive, intended to convince readers of the best approaches when teachers and students discuss literature texts as a post reading aloud activity. However, the source is infused with much evidence to support the authors’ claims, meaning it can function as in informational report as well. Because it was published in Reading Teacher, this article is most likely meant for educators/teachers of young students who are seeking ways to improve a student’s level of comprehension through reading, or the lay person just interested in obtaining a more direct perspective. An expert in the field could benefit from the specific examples that are cited, however.
Summary: Identify the author’s thesis – The authors’ sentiments about successful interaction between educators and students while reading aloud can be summed up in the following sentences: “Getting students to engage with texts involves a multiplicity of simultaneous activities, including motivation, content knowledge, literacy strategies, and social collaboration before, during, and after a literacy event. Engagement strategies can be thought of as vehicles with the capability to transfer and transport students’ thinking from listening to a story to writing about their understanding” (Morrison 110).
What are the main arguments? – Initially, a brief history of the purpose of reading is given, which introduces transitional theory, meaning “the reader must transact with the text to make meaning” (Morrison 111). Also, throughout the reading process, readers (especially young children who have not yet fully developed) tend to make connections to their prior knowledge, and should be encouraged to ask/answer questions or disagree/present an alternative perspective. Read-aloud experiences help to mature a student’s speaking and listening skills, as well as their oral language development. Thus, teachers should be sure to include follow-up activities to read-aloud session, because reflection results in comprehension.
Evidence? – In addition to including their own experiences, the authors cite the findings of researches Klesius and Griffith who “explained that the read-aloud experience increases students’ vocabulary development and comprehension growth” (Morrison 111). Additionally, the Alphaboxes strategy, an idea introduced by Hoyt, is viewed by many as a strong tool to induce interaction with the text. “Alphaboxes can take the form of a prereading or a postreading activity to help stimulate students to think about and discuss key ideas in the text. For example, while notating examples under the appropriate alphabet letter in each box, students can generate question; highlight important concepts; make connections; provide explanations” (Morrison 112).
Evaluation: Evaluation of research – The authors draw a logical conclusion based on personal research and observations between students with each other and their teachers during storytime in class. The information is presented logically and flows naturally. It is organized into subheadings such as “Reading as a Transactional Process,” “Rationale for Promoting Engagement With Texts,” and “Making Connections in First Grade,” which makes the article much easier to understand.
Evaluation of scope – The topic has been thoroughly addressed by the authors, who supplement their personal feelings with facts taken from reliable sources that are cited in-text, and relevant observations from classrooms. The information presented in the article remains pertinent to the indications of the title
Evaluation of author bias – The purpose of the article is to persuade the readers toward a certain belief [that reading aloud is beneficial to young children, especially when teachers engage their students into discussions throughout the session regarding context], thus a certain amount of bias is evident. However, it is a bias that is shared by many, and although Morrison and Wlodarczyk are not objective, they do keep a professional tone throughout.
Reflection: Is this source helpful to your research? – Yes, I think this article will be very helpful to my final research project. There are many examples of classroom interactions in which the authors actively participated such as dialog and charts; these specific instances can surely be used to demonstrate the effectiveness of strategies that should be utilized by teachers to increase student comprehension. Also, strategies such as Alphaboxes, prior to which I had never heard of, can potentially serve as an area of concentration in my thesis.
Reading Teacher. Vol. 30. International Reading Association, 1977. 864-867.
8. JSTOR. Web. 27 Sept. 2010. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/20194414>.
Information:
Author’s credentials – The author, James E. Flood, is a professor of language and reading at Boston University in Boston, Massachusetts. Thus, he should know a significant amount regarding the benefits of reading. He also uses in-text citation in the article (which is a scholarly source) and has a lists of references, all concerning reading and young children.
Scope and purpose of the work – This article functions as an informational report, intended to inform, not persuade, the reader of the author’s opinion, which is backed up with specific details.
Intended audience - Based on the professional yet simple language of the article, it is most likely written for a general audience who does not know much about the topic. The use of specific facts also makes the article useful for experts in the field of reading and comprehension who are looking for an article to use as a starting point.
Summary:
Identify the author’s thesis – The author begins by introducing the topic and the general assumption that reading leads to more progressive language development, then states that not many people take into consideration what specifically leads to enhanced language maturity. By basing the article on a specific study done in 1970 regarding parent and child interaction by reading, Flood indicates that he believes parental reading to young children is beneficial for their mental and emotional growth, especially if focused on four main aspects, as indicated through the results of the study.
What are the main arguments? – Flood enforces his support of early reading by citing the significant findings of the study, namely four aspects: children benefit from reading preparation, such as general questions from the parents prior to actually reading the book; children should be actively involved in the reading process; positive reinforcement from the parent stimulates learning; and ‘debriefing’ after the story about the content helps the child and remember what he/she has read.
Evidence? – Flood specifically references and cites the 1970 study done by Marshall Swift. The study was associated with the Get Set Program in Philadelphia, which helps mothers of pre-schoolers expand their children’s learning through observational skills and more elaborate thoughts. 171 parents participated with their kids ages 3½-4½. Parents were asked to read the book Ask Mr. Bear by Marjorie Flack to their children. The interaction between parent and child, with emphasis on specific tasks, was recorded and later evaluated for number of words/questions asked by the child, the parent, etc.
Evaluation:
Evaluation of research – The article is obviously well-researched and presented in a logical and orderly way. The source is scholarly and the author, based on his occupation, is reliable. Nine references were given following the article.
Evaluation of scope – The topic has been adequately addressed, though the article is focused primarily on the results on one study, with little mention to additional studies or any opposing viewpoints.
Evaluation of author bias – The author supports the stance that reading to children from a young age, when done properly, is beneficial. Therefore, his stance is not quite objective, though he uses a professional tone and backs all his statements up with ample facts. It’s hard to imagine someone claiming that reading does not have any valuable effects on the developing minds of children.
Reflection:
Is this source helpful to your research? – This source was a good starting point, and provided a broad scope while also focusing on one specific example/study. The data gleaned from the study supports my argument, and the information helped me specify my research question. I will definitely use this in my final project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Mary, Brownell T., and Chriss Walther-Thomas. "An interview with...Dr. Michael Pressley."
Intervention in School & Clinic 1 Nov. 2000: 105. eLibrary. Web. 29 Sept. 2010. <,http://elibrary.bigchalk.com/elibweb/curriculum/do/ document...>.
Information:
Author’s credentials – Authors Mary T. Brownell and Chriss Walther-Thomas are both involved in education. Brownell is associated with the Department of Special Education at the University of Florida, while Walther-Thomas currently works at the College of William and Mary. Because this article was an interview, it is also important to note the qualifications of the interviewee, because the majority of cited information is given by him. Dr. Michael Pressley is currently an academic director and teacher of education at the University of Nature Dame. He has an undergraduate degree from Northwestern University, where he studied developmental psychology. He then attended both the University of Minnesota and the University of Wisconsin as a doctoral student, where he concentrated on children’s reading. Pressley has taught at numerous schools, including the California State University at Fullerton, the University of Maryland, and the University of Western Ontario in Canada. Additionally, Pressley received the Sylvia Scribner Award from the American Educational Research Association for his research contributions to instruction/learning, coauthored the book Verbal Protocols of Reading, and participated in a study of first grade teachers with Dr. Richard Allington at the State University of New York at Albany.
Scope and purpose of work – The purpose of this article is to inform the reader. The interview serves as an overview of Dr. Pressley’s opinions regarding the teaching of effective developmental strategies in struggling readers. Though the source is not objective, a persuasive tone is not taken.
Intended audience – Due to the nature of the article, one can assume that the intended audience consists of lay persons, who are seeking to develop and expand upon their knowledge. Particularly, teachers or parents of children struggling with reading would benefit from this article. Certain parts to go into detail, so it could potentially be useful to experts as well.
Summary:
Identify the author’s thesis – First, Dr. Pressley addresses the difficulties that plague struggling readers when dealing with text comprehension. He focuses on children who have yet to enter kindergarten, and explains why the lack of development in such young children often makes it difficult for them to perceive text in the same way adults do. After citing the mistakes that teachers and parents make when nurturing reading skills in young children, he discusses the positive changes that both teachers and parents should make to better facilitate development. Ultimately, Pressley indicates that he believes not enough is being done to fully support young readers, and follows this declaration with his ideas (based on experience/research) on what should be done.
What are the main arguments – Because young children do not yet have fully developed oral skills, Pressley indicates that the activities in young grades, specifically kindergarten, focus too much on word-recognition skills, sounds and blending, and letters. This is difficult for students to understand, because they do not yet possess sufficient speaking skills. Instead, teachers should encourage students to integrate their prior knowledge with the reading material, and focus more on comprehension strategies (such as organizational skills). Reading programs for struggling students, such as Reading Recovery, should begin around second grade and focus on phonics skills, integrating reading with writing. Additionally, such programs should be in part impromptu, because these gives teachers greater flexibility to address areas of learning that need concentration.
Evidence? – During the interview, Pressley cites his observations of the evolution of reading programs through the grades to support his beliefs that as children get older, not enough is done to aid in literary development, and what is done is done with a lack of organization and in irrelevant ways. Later, Pressley discusses his interactions with programs such as Reading Recovery, which are aimed at supporting the reading skills of struggling readers. He mentions in detail the strategies implemented, mainly the combination of phonics and writing supplements, and the success rates of this program. He then uses this information to expose the ineffectiveness of ‘scripted’ reading programs because they do not allow teachers to interact with students on a specific topic without planning to do so.
Evaluation:
Evaluation of research – The article is presented in a professional, structured way. There is an introduction which establishes Dr. Pressley’s expertise, which is followed by an interview in which the questions are organized by sub-section.
Evaluation of scope – The topic (the effectiveness of various reading strategies on struggling readers) is presented thoroughly, although at times Pressley doesn’t seem to adequately support his statements with experience or research. He does stay on task, though a great deal of the interview is opinion with not much other than credentials to back up Pressley’s ideas.
Evaluation of author bias – Dr. Pressley is very opinionated regarding the topic, though his interview is not conducted in such a way that the reader feels actively persuaded. He definitely supports a specific stance, though it is with professionalism and tact.
Reflection:
Is this source helpful for your research? – This source is not as helpful as I initially thought it would be because although a strong viewpoint is presented, not enough research is given to back it up. Additionally, it focuses on struggling readers more so than early readers. I did however learn strong background regarding the most effective ways to enhance reading, which could be applied to my topic in a slightly broader way. I will probably be able to incorporate some of this background knowledge into my ultimate research product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Cooper, David H., Deborah L. Speece, and Froma P. Roth. "A Longitudinal Analysis
of the Connection between Oral Language and Early Reading." The Journal of
Educational Research. Vol. 95. Heldref Publications, 2002. 259-272. 5. JSTOR. Web.
4 Oct. 2010. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/27542389>.
Information:
Author’s credentials – All three collaborative authors of this publication are affiliated with the University of Maryland. David Cooper is the associate dean for undergraduate programs and school partnerships in the College of Education, Froma Roth is involved with the study of hearing and speech sciences, and Deborah Spreece is a professor for the department for special education. Contact information, including address and email, is given.
Scope and purpose of the work – Based on the detailed nature of the article and the scientific terms used throughout, I do not think this article was written for the lay person. It is an intricate information report, and seems to be written for someone who is an expert regarding language development through reading in young children. The study is extensively explained in great detail.
Summary:
Identify the author’s thesis – The three authors use their findings from the first three years of a longitudinal study which they hope will ultimately show the relationship between early reading and oral language development. They hope to support their beliefs that the importance of oral language skills in regard to early reading in elementary children functionally varies in terms to reading skill, measurement point, and language domain.
What are the main arguments? – The primary argument of this article is that phonological awareness in kindergarten leads to more developed reading habits in first and second grades. However, the authors believe that semantic abilities (such as retrieval and oral definitions) are more effective than phonological awareness during the analyzation process.
Evidence – In order to clarify their hypothesis, the authors engaged 39 children into a wide range of oral language measures in three different areas, as well as measures of reading abilities and background variables. The same children were analyzed in kindergarten, first, and second grade for their variations in reading styles. Regression analyses were used to collect and model data.
Evaluation:
Evaluation of research – Because this detailed report explains the results of a three-year longitudinal study, the work is obviously well-researched. Though some of the concepts are a little difficult, everything is presented in an orderly fashion.
Evaluation of scope – The authors’ claims are based on a personal investigation, therefore one can say that the topic has been more than adequately explored.
Evaluation of author bias – The authors take an objective stance on the data throughout the entire report, and do not manipulate the reader toward one direction or another.
Reflection:
Is this source helpful for your research? – This source is helpful in my research, and will be particularly useful in supporting my findings with specific examples or studies or methods. I learned of the connection between reading and language development, and the entire source, which describes the study in detail, supports all drawn conclusions. This source, because of the detail, should help me narrow my topic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Why Reading by the End of Third Grade Matters." The Education Digest Sept. 2010: 27-31.
ProQuest Education Journals. Web. 5 Oct. 2010. <http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=8&sid=18&sr>.
Information:
Author’s credentials – The author of this article submitted it anonymously, therefore nothing is known about him/her. Though this questions the reliability of the article, the information will be a good starting point upon which to base further research.
Scope and purpose of the work – This article acts as a mix between a general overview based on opinion and an informational report. Facts are intertwined with the author’s own attitudes regarding the importance of proficient reading from elementary school. Based on the writing of the article and the broad perspective that is taken, this source is most likely written for an average person, rather than an expert in the field. It elicits greater thought regarding the reasons proficient reading by third grade is necessary.
Summary:
Identify the author's thesis – The author believes that all children should be able to read on a capable level by the end of third grade. He also acknowledges that this is often not the case, and if children begin to fall behind in reading abilities at even such a young age, the results can be detrimental. A child who is not a proficient reader in elementary school may never catch up and be prepared mentally (in terms of language and vocabulary skills) and emotionally for the challenges presented in high school and the real world. Additionally, the author blames in part the schools and reading programs, which he believes do not separate children into the right categories when classifying their skill levels.
What are the main arguments? – In order to enforce his viewpoint, the author discusses four recommendations offered by the Common Core State Standards Initiative of what should be done to increase literacy in young students. The first suggestion indicates that a logical system regarding early education should be developed that deals with children from birth until kindergarten. This system should coincide with the patterns of learning utilized by elementary school in order to maintain a consistent learning technique. Suggestion number two highlights the necessity of parents, caregivers, and families when encouraging literary growth through reading with elementary age children. The third recommendation proposes that more should be done to aid in developing underprivileged school programs, because these environments often bring about the lowest test scores. Finally, it is suggested that special attention should be given to extended absences from school, especially summer vacation, in order to minimize the reading skills that are lost during the summer due to lack of usage.
Evidence? – The author’s arguments are reported by the 2009 results of the national Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) – a test which evaluates reading skills [in 4th graders]. While the majority of the article is opinions, evidence is also supported by citations to efforts of the government to raise national capabilities of children in reading (i.e. the No Child Left Behind Act). This ties into my argument that children must start reading at a young age.
Evaluation:
Evaluation of research – The information is presented in an organized fashion, and is clear and easy to follow. It is well-researched in certain aspects, such as when referring to what is being done to better reading capabilities in children, but not quite as much as I had originally thought in terms of evidence of the necessity of reading in young children.
Evaluation of scope – In my opinion, lots of background is given, but the topic reflected in the name of the article (Why Reading by the End of Third Grade Matters) is not adequately covered. There are not many direct examples given, and while recommendations on how to enforce better reading habits are mentioned, the benefits of reading by the end of third grade are not explicitly stated.
Evaluation of author bias – Though the author supports a specific viewpoint and supports his opinion, he does it tactfully and subtly. However, the article is not objective, and the author often references his opinion.
Reflection:
Is this source helpful for your research? – Some of the statistics/tests used as evidence are helpful for the background of my research, and will support my argument that early reading is beneficial for young children. But the second half of the article is not related to my area of concentration, and thus is not very useful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Lane, Holy B., and Tyran L. Wright. "Maximizing the Effectiveness of Reading Aloud."
Reading Teacher 60.7 (2007): 668-675. Education Research Complete.Web. 11 Oct. 2010. <http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/results?vid=2&hid=8&s...>.
Information:
Author’s credentials – Holly B. Lane teaches at the University of Florida. Lane is an assistant professor in the Department of Special Education, where she is involved in research regarding to children who don’t respond typically to normal classroom situations. Tyran L. Wright is also a teacher at the University of Florida.
Scope and purpose of the work – This article seems intended for teachers and educators because it focuses on how such people can help children become stronger readers. For that reason, the source is also appropriate for parents of young children who are learning to read. It is written as informational report, with multiple references to studies that have been conducted. The language however, is not too technical.
Summary:
Identify the author’s thesis – The authors believe that reading aloud to/with young children can be extremely beneficial to cognitive learning development regardless of how it’s done. However, there are certain, specific things educators/parents must do in order to maximize the benefits gleaned from read-aloud sessions with children. Thus, the authors are arguing that the benefits of reading aloud can only be exploited fully if done in a precise manner.
What are the main arguments? – The authors divided the article into sections. The first section features background on people’s general opinions on reading aloud. Then, the article segments into variables that should be taken into account when reading with children: time allotted, text/books used, most successful methods, and implementation in the classroom. For example, an assortment of book genres should be used, and different types are successful for different goals. If a student is struggling with vocabulary, a storybook is the best choice because of the expressive language. Additionally, print referencing, which is drawing attention to other aspects of the story such as pictures, should be implemented because it peaks a child’s interest in books.
Evidence? – Multiple past studies and research projects are cited. Dialogic reading was developed by Whitehurst, and is used most with preschool children. It encourages active learning by providing feedback to the story and asking questions to challenge the child to a level just above his current ability. Additionally, text talk, developed primarily by Beck and McKeown, focuses on vocabulary development, and is utilized in primary grades. This strategy is focused around in-class discussions in school. Charts are given to support the findings.
Evaluation:
Evaluation of research – The article is obviously very well researched. It is presented logically in three main topics with multiple subheadings, all supported with citations to studies and methods, references to which are given in the back of the article. The writing is clear and easy to follow.
Evaluation of scope – The topic at hand is thoroughly addressed, with multiples references to past studies and investigations that support the authors’ thesis. It is broken down and ample information is given for each subheading, some of which are “Selecting words to teach,” “Creating child-friendly definitions ”and“ Examining book reading in the classroom”.
Evaluation of author bias – The authors take a distinct position on the benefits of reading aloud, but are not necessarily extremely persuasive. The present the information professionally and ultimately allow the readers to form their own opinion based on the extensive examples given in the text.
Reflection:
Is this source helpful to your research? – This is perhaps the most beneficial source I have found to date. The entire article directly addresses my topic, and many references to studies I can research more in-depth if necessary are presented. This source has allowed me to narrow my topic even more, which will now focus on actively reading aloud to young children, as opposed to just simply reading with them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Trelease, Jim. The Read-Aloud Handbook. 4th ed. 1979. New York: Penguin Books,
1995. Print.
Information:
Author’s credentials – Jim Trelease is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts. For twenty years postgraduation, Jim wrote for The Springfield Daily News in Massachusetts, while publishing multiple articles in The Reading Teacher and Parents Magazine. Jim has traveled to all 50 states to lecture on the importance of reading aloud to children. His book, The Read-Aloud Handbook, is used by over 60 U.S. colleges as a required reading for education students.
Scope and purpose of the work – The Read-Aloud Handbook acts as an extended informational report. Though Trelease is trying to persuade his audience of the benefits of reading aloud to children, the focus lies more on the facts Trelease uses to explain his point of view [which is shared by many]. The author takes a casual tone, which allows for a smooth combination of factual evidence and opinion. Additionally, the book is intended for the lay person, particularly parents (and teachers) who are seeking to better the reading experience of their students.
Summary:
Identify the author’s thesis –Trelease strongly believes that parents should begin reading to their children from birth onward, in order to initially ‘condition’ children to the sound and sight of books, and to peak their interest. He also supports a schedule of the different stages of read-aloud, including when and how to introduce different types of books [pop-up books, joke books, fairy tales, and critical thinking books].
What are the main arguments? – Trelease adheres to a specific list of “do” and “don’ts” when reading to children in order to secure that curiosity established from reading to children from birth. For example, do look up answers to a child’s question in a reference book if applicable in order expand the child’s knowledge base and develop library skills, but don’t use the book as a threat, such as “If you don’t pick up your room, no story tonight!” because the child’s attitude about reading will be negatively affected.
Evidence? – Trelease makes multiple references to facts to demonstrate the necessity of reading aloud, and its positive effects. He begins with background statistics regarding reading in children in general: for example, when surveyed in 1992, 45.7% of fourth graders said they read for pleasure each day, while that number was down to 24.4% by twelfth grade, indicating that unless a permanent interest in reading is established at a young age (through reading aloud) children lose interest in books as they age. Additionally schools must implement reading aloud with the young grades, because in 1994, only “5 percent of twelfth-graders [were] able to write on the level of a college freshman” (Trelease 6), demonstrating that often not enough is done to encourage a lasting love of reading among children.
Evaluation:
Evaluation of research – The work is extremely well-researched, and presented in logical chapters and subheadings. It is obvious through the multiple references to reading-related statistics that Trelease put much effort into the research of his book. It is written in a friendly yet formal tone which is clear to the reader and holds ones attention.
Evaluation of scope – In the 300 plus pages of The Read-Aloud Handbook, Trelease addresses more topics that imaginable in copious detail. He takes into account many variables, such as the effects of television accompanied with reading and the benefits of SSR: Sustained silent reading. The listing of over 100 references in the back of the book indicates his attention to every element.
Evaluation of author bias – Trelease spends the entire book arguing a certain position (how to go about reading aloud to children to the utmost effectiveness) but is never arrogant about his opinion, which he backs up with ample facts.
Reflection:
Is this source helpful to your research? – This source is definitely the most beneficial of all my sources. From what I gleaned by breezing through the book and reading certain sections, each chapter is pertinent to my research topic. Though the facts are a little dated, there is still plenty of relevant evidence and examples presented. My knowledge on the different stages of reading aloud, in termed of the books utilized, was expanded upon. I now have a much better understanding of the direction I can take during my subsequent research to focus on certain subtopics of my research question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Gallagher, Kelly. Readicide. Portland: Stenhouse Publishers, 2009. Print.
Information:
Author’s credentials – Kelly Gallagher has been a high school English teacher for twenty-three years, and is currently teaching full-time at Magnolia High School in Anaheim, California. Gallagher has written other books about how to teach reading/writing effectively, including Deeper Reading: Comprehending Challenging Texts 4-12 and Reading Reasons: Motivational Mini-Lessons for Middle and High School. He also served as the codirector of the South Basin Writing Project at California State University.
Scope and purpose of the work – The purpose of Readicide is to persuade the reader, and evoke great emotion in response to the author’s strong opinions on the negative effects that schools are having on certain aspects of reading. The book is also informative in that it cites various examples of standardized test questions and graphs about average reading and writing scores, but all these tactics are used solely to persuade the reader towards the detrimental effects of certain aspects of modern schooling. Readicide is intended for the lay person because it is written in fairly simple terms. If a teacher or school administrator were to read it, he/she would possibly be offended, though this could be Gallagher’s intention in order to bring about results.
Summary:
Identify the author’s thesis – Gallagher begins by voicing concern that reading is declining in schools. Though he acknowledges that factors such as electronic advancements and second-language issues contribute to the deterioration, Gallagher adamantly blames the standardized practices of schools. He defines “readicide” as “the systematic killing of the love of reading, often exacerbated by the inane, mind-numbing practices found in schools.” He belives that the school systems must be made aware of the mistakes they are unknowingly making in their methods and techniques.
What are the main arguments? – Gallagher adamantly supports the idea that reading skills are overtaught to such an extent in schools that students begin to lose interest in reading for pleasure. He believes that teachers spend too much time teaching reading/analyzation skills simply for the purpose of standardized testing. At one point, he brings up the questions of: “When you curl up with a book, do you do so with the idea of preparing for a state-mandated multiple-choice exam? Do you pause at the end of each chapter so you can spend an hour answering a worksheet filled with mind-numbing answers?” (Gallagher 72).
Evidence? – A recurring theme that is discussed is the use of standard multiple-choice questions, and how variation from this such format is essential. At one point, Gallagher includes an example of the one-page paper he requires his students to fill out to supplement their recreational reading. It has a student’s answers written in to indicate the thought process and response to this type of requirement, and is contrasted with the lengthy and technically analytical that is so often required. When citing his concerns with the current school system, Gallagher refers to statistics from To Read or Not to Read (National Endowment for the arts, 2007), including that Americans spend about two hours per day watching television, but only about seven minutes on pleasure reading.
Evaluation:
Evaluation of research – Though controversial, the book is well-researched with multiple facts/statistics to support Gallagher’s bold claims. It is presented eloquently and logically in terms of chapter progression, though some of the statements are borderline brash. Gallagher very clearly demonstrates his beliefs on the uselessness of some aspects of the current school systems, particularly the fixation on teaching for standardized testing.
Evaluation of scope – The topic of “Readicide” is very unique in and of itself, but Gallagher addresses it with much detail and numerous facts taken in the past few years pertaining to the state of school systems in terms of standardized testing and overteaching/analyzing academic texts, which he believes are killing a love of reading in children. Each facet of his argument is adequately addressed, and countered with what ‘we,’ as parents and teachers, can do to limit a loss of interest in reading.
Evaluation of author bias – Readicide is a very controversial book, and Gallagher is obviously quite passionate about his topic, which makes his bias heavily evident. He argues against the methods used by schools when analyzing and teaching literature to the point where some of his claims are quite bold, and definitely not objective at all. However, this is seemingly Gallagher’s intention with the book in order to bring more attention to it and thus his point of view.
Reflection:
Is this source helpful to your research? –Though highly opinionated, this book could be useful in formulating my final project. Readicide focuses more on what schools are doing wrong in terms of reading programs, but also provides examples of what should be done instead to encourage a lifelong love of reading. These examples, if pertaining to the younger grades, apply in some cases to the open discussion and critical analysis of books that should accompany reading out loud. For example, through the chart entitled “Ending Readicide: The 50/50 Approach,” many examples are given regarding what teachers should do for students in terms of developing recreation versus academic reading skills. For example, teachers should “stop grading recreational reading. [They] should give credit for recreational reading, but stop grading it” (Gallagher 117). Additionally, I also learned that according to Gallagher, teachers should “stop chopping the book into so many pieces that the book itself gets lost” (Gallagher 117). The information presented pertains to the part of my research question that will address what can be done in schools/by parents to encourage sophisticated reading skills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Ross, Catherine Sheldrick, Lynne McKechnie, and Paulette M. Rothbauer. Reading Matters.
Westport: Greenwood Publishing Corp., 2006. Print.
Information:
Author’s credentials – Catherine Sheldrick Ross is employed with the University of Western Ontario, where she is a dean and professor of the school of Library and Information Studies. She currently is teaching a course on ‘Readers’ Advisory,’ and is also involved in collecting data/research about the joys of reading. Lynne McKechnie also works at the School of Library and Information Studies at the University of Western Ontario, though she is an associate professor. She is in the midst of a longitudinal study about the role of public libraries for 30 young children. Lastly, Paulette M. Rothbauer is an assistant professor at the University of Toronto. She has won the Eugene Garfield dissertation.
Scope and purpose of the work – Why Reading Matters debunks recurring myths about reading, allowing the authors to use their gathered facts from journals, media studies, or additional libraries. It can be considered an informational report because there were many facts and statistics [referenced in the back of the book] broken down into categories including “the social nature of reading,” “audiences,” and “reader-response”. The preface of the book specifically states that it was “written for people who are interested in reading and in the role that reading plays in people’s lives” (Ross ix). This can refer to both the average person who simply wants to learn how to benefit their children to the utmost degree, or to librarians, teachers, and educators who are seeking a method for successful teaching of reading skills for their classrooms.
Summary:
Identify the author’s thesis –Like many additional authors, the three authors of Reading Matters stress the importance of reading from a young age, and developing that interest. They point out that reading interestss vary by gender, and thus gender and age are important factors that should not be overlooked. The teachers/educators/parents must take into consideration the specific needs of each individual by asking questions and introducing them to a variety of genres in order to expand their horizons, so to speak.
What are the main arguments? –The authors support their allegations on childhood reading with the belief that most children agree on liking adventure, mystery, and ghost stories. Additionally, while parents and educators often want their students to be well-read in terms of literary classics, allowing students access to popular literature, comic books and cartoons holds their interests. Additionally, information on ‘the emergent literacy paradigm’ stresses the importance of reading to children from birth instead of beginning when they receive the first formal instruction in school.
Evidence? – Many references are provided at the end of each chapter in response to the authors’ numerous inclusions of longitudinal studies, statistics, and allegations. For example, Catherine Ross conducted a study of “avid adult readers” (Ross 70) which had adults who consider themselves avid readers reflect on their reading experiences in childhood in order to draw a parallel. In almost all cases, the parents of the adults were directly involved in the reading process, whether it be by supplying lots of books for the household or reading a bedtime story every night. Access to resources and parent involvement were prevalent. In 1995, McKenna, Kear, and Ellsworth surveyed 18,195 American children in grades one-six to find that “negative attitudes toward reading were correlated with weaker ability, with the least able readers being the least interested in reading” (Ross 65). Additionally, the older the children got, the less of an interest in reading they expressed. Over the years, the gap between the interest of girls and boys widened, with girls having the more favorable attitude.
Evaluation:
Evaluation of research –This source is one of the easiest to navigate. The information is broken into four chapters, not including the conclusion, and each chapter has anywhere from five to nine subheadings, which are sometimes posed as questions. It is organized logically by age group, which makes it easy for me to find the areas of childhood and young adult. The language is simple to understand.
Evaluation of scope – The topic that I require for my research (children’s books ranging from pre-school to teenage appropriate) is addressed adequately throughout two chapters. The multiple steps necessary to become an accomplished reader, in terms of what to read and how to handle problems should they arise, are explained in great length.
Evaluation of author bias – Though the authors adhere to a certain set of beliefs, the nature of the book is not necessarily strongly persuasive. Evidence is presented in a straightforward fashion, and interweaved subtly with the opinions of the authors. Objectivity in terms of the ‘most correct’ way to effectively read aloud to children is very difficult to achieve, because each author possesses a slightly different viewpoint, all which can be backed up with statistics.
Reflection:
Is this source helpful to your research? – I think this book will serve as a good foundation for background research on my topic. The focus is on reading in different stages of life, and though the information presented in the childhood and early adolescent sections are pertinent, there is not a concentration on reading aloud, which is my personal focal point. However, there are ample surveys that provide facts on reading in certain age groups which I will most likely use to introduce different aspects of my research question. For example, reading aloud is implied in a quote by Margaret Meek, an internationally known reading expert: “The process [of reading] should begin at an early age and continue as a genuine collaborative activity until the child leaves school” (Ross 67).
9. Beck, Isabel L., and Margaret G. McKeown. "Text Talk: Capturing the Benefits of
Read-Aloud Experiences for Young Children." Reading Teacher 55.1 (2001):
10-11. Teacher Reference Center. Web. 7 Oct. 2010.
<http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=>.
Information:
Author’s credentials – Isabel Beck is a senior scientist at the University of Pittsburgh, where she also teaches courses on education. Beck has written books, and edited both children and adult books. Her published titles include Creating Robust Vocabulary: Frequently Asked Questions and Extended Examples (Solving Problems in Teaching of Literacy), and Zoom Along 1.2 (Story Town). Margaret McKeown is a senior research scientist at the University of Pittsburgh’s Learning Research and Development Center. She has written and spoken about problems that teachers and students face in the modern classroom.
Scope and purpose of the work – This is an informational report intended to expand upon the authors’ beliefs on the topic of reading aloud to young children. The authors are not objective, and present their personal opinion regarding the effectiveness of read-aloud experiences, but it is done is a professional way. Thus, the source is a persuasive piece that is backed up with ample facts and relevant information – a balance of information and persuasion. The article is written for teachers because it is published in the journal Reading Teacher, which is utilized by educators. However, parents of young children would benefit from reading the article as well. Essentially, a lay person could easily understand the caliber of language.
Summary:
Identify the author’s thesis – When adults read aloud to young children, a certain type of text/storybook should be used, because the text provides the basis for all other methods of understanding (supplemental discussions, etc). “Texts that are effective for developing language and comprehension ability need to be conceptually challenging enough to require grappling with ideas and taking an active stance towards constructing meaning” (Beck 1). The authors then branch out into other subtopics.
What are the main arguments? – When discussing the context of text with young children, “the most effective features include focusing the discussion on major story ideas, dealing with ideas as they are encountered in contrast to after the entire story has been read, and involving children in the discussion with opportunities to be reflective” (Beck 2). However, children tend to mostly rely on solely pictures and background knowledge for context, even though such categories are not always congruent with the main idea of the text. Also, teachers should phrase their questions pertaining to text in such a way that open discussion, rather than one-word answers. Children often have difficulty pertaining to the topic at hand, and feel much more comfortable answering questions to general situations that do not require as much elaboration. Teachers must actively work to get children out of their comfort zone, demonstrating that at such a young age, kids find decontextualizing language very difficult.
Evidence? - During their experience in the classrooms, Beck and McKeown found that most kindergarten and first grade teachers generally did not involve students on discussing the major story ideas during reading. “Specifically, [they] observed how children frequently ignored text information and responded to questions on the basis of the pictures and their background knowledge” (Beck 3). Additionally, the authors cite another encounter they experienced in the classroom, which highlights students’ dependence on background knowledge. The Book Curious George Takes a Job begins with “This is George. He lived in the zoo. He was a good little monkey and always very curious. He wanted to find out what was going on outside the zoo” (Rey, qtd. in Beck 4). When asked about what was known about George so far, one student responded, “He likes bananas,” showing that his background knowledge on monkeys was predominant.
Evaluation:
Evaluation of research – The article is presented in a clear and direct way. One can easily follow the sequence of thoughts of the authors. It is divided into sections, each with a relevant heading, such as “What we learned from observations, “Texts,” and “Follow-up Questions,” which makes finding specific elements very easy. The topic is obviously well-researched because the authors spent time observing the reading habits of kindergarten and first grade classes, and support all claims with evidence from books or with tables.
Evaluation of scope – Based on the numerous amounts of evidence both from personal experience [of observations] and research, one can conclude that the authors stay on topic throughout, successfully addressing multiple aspects of making the most of read-aloud experiences. All the information is relevant to the article title.
Evaluation of author bias – Because of their personal experience with observations of children’s reading interactions in young grades, both Beck and McKeown are biased as to how to make the most of a read-aloud experience with young children.
Reflection:
Is this source helpful to your research? – Because of the caliber of personal experience of the author, this source will be very beneficial. I will be able to incorporate numerous examples of the authors’ classroom experiences to demonstrate the techniques commonly used by teachers. These examples will then support my narrowed thesis, focusing on the specific types of techniques that should be utilized to produce the most success during read-alouds.
10. Morrison, Vanessa, and Lisa Wlodarczyk. "Revisiting Read-Aloud: Instructional
Strategies That Encourage Students' Engagement With Texts." Reading Teacher
63.2 (2009): 110-118. Education Research Complete. Web. 11 Oct. 2010.
<http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=8&s...>.
Information:
Author’s credentials – At the time this article was written, Morrison was teaching at Adrian College in Adrian, Michigan as an Assistant Professor of Teacher Education. Information about Lisa Wlodarczyk was scarce, but she is currently a first grade teacher in Oahu, Hawaii.
Scope and purpose of the work – One can tell simply from the title of the article that the source
is persuasive, intended to convince readers of the best approaches when teachers and students discuss literature texts as a post reading aloud activity. However, the source is infused with much evidence to support the authors’ claims, meaning it can function as in informational report as well. Because it was published in Reading Teacher, this article is most likely meant for educators/teachers of young students who are seeking ways to improve a student’s level of comprehension through reading, or the lay person just interested in obtaining a more direct perspective. An expert in the field could benefit from the specific examples that are cited, however.
Summary:
Identify the author’s thesis – The authors’ sentiments about successful interaction between educators and students while reading aloud can be summed up in the following sentences: “Getting students to engage with texts involves a multiplicity of simultaneous activities, including motivation, content knowledge, literacy strategies, and social collaboration before, during, and after a literacy event. Engagement strategies can be thought of as vehicles with the capability to transfer and transport students’ thinking from listening to a story to writing about their understanding” (Morrison 110).
What are the main arguments? – Initially, a brief history of the purpose of reading is given, which introduces transitional theory, meaning “the reader must transact with the text to make meaning” (Morrison 111). Also, throughout the reading process, readers (especially young children who have not yet fully developed) tend to make connections to their prior knowledge, and should be encouraged to ask/answer questions or disagree/present an alternative perspective. Read-aloud experiences help to mature a student’s speaking and listening skills, as well as their oral language development. Thus, teachers should be sure to include follow-up activities to read-aloud session, because reflection results in comprehension.
Evidence? – In addition to including their own experiences, the authors cite the findings of researches Klesius and Griffith who “explained that the read-aloud experience increases students’ vocabulary development and comprehension growth” (Morrison 111). Additionally, the Alphaboxes strategy, an idea introduced by Hoyt, is viewed by many as a strong tool to induce interaction with the text. “Alphaboxes can take the form of a prereading or a postreading activity to help stimulate students to think about and discuss key ideas in the text. For example, while notating examples under the appropriate alphabet letter in each box, students can generate question; highlight important concepts; make connections; provide explanations” (Morrison 112).
Evaluation:
Evaluation of research – The authors draw a logical conclusion based on personal research and observations between students with each other and their teachers during storytime in class. The information is presented logically and flows naturally. It is organized into subheadings such as “Reading as a Transactional Process,” “Rationale for Promoting Engagement With Texts,” and “Making Connections in First Grade,” which makes the article much easier to understand.
Evaluation of scope – The topic has been thoroughly addressed by the authors, who supplement their personal feelings with facts taken from reliable sources that are cited in-text, and relevant observations from classrooms. The information presented in the article remains pertinent to the indications of the title
Evaluation of author bias – The purpose of the article is to persuade the readers toward a certain belief [that reading aloud is beneficial to young children, especially when teachers engage their students into discussions throughout the session regarding context], thus a certain amount of bias is evident. However, it is a bias that is shared by many, and although Morrison and Wlodarczyk are not objective, they do keep a professional tone throughout.
Reflection:
Is this source helpful to your research? – Yes, I think this article will be very helpful to my final research project. There are many examples of classroom interactions in which the authors actively participated such as dialog and charts; these specific instances can surely be used to demonstrate the effectiveness of strategies that should be utilized by teachers to increase student comprehension. Also, strategies such as Alphaboxes, prior to which I had never heard of, can potentially serve as an area of concentration in my thesis.